News:

MysticWicks endorsement: ""Oooh, I'm a Discordian! I can do whatever I want! Which means I can just SAY I'm a pagan but I never bother doing rituals or studying any kind of sacred texts or developing a relationship with deity, etc! I can go around and not be Christian, but I won't quite be anything else either because I just can't commit and I can't be ARSED to commit!"

Who will be chosen to replace David Dreier as the Chairman of the House Rules Committee?

This is a fairly important question because of the way in which the Rules Committee is essentially the master rule of controlling Congress.

Quote from: Matt Taibbi

The House Rules Committee is perhaps the free world's outstanding bureaucratic abomination ─a tiny, airless closet deep in the labyrinth of the Capitol where some of the very meanest people on earth spend their days cleaning democracy like a fish. The official function of the committee is to decide which bills and amendments will be voted on by Congress and also to schedule the parameters of debate. If Rules votes against your amendment, your amendment dies. If you control the Rules Committee, you control Congress.

The committee has nine majority members and four minority members. But in fact, only one of those thirteen people matters. Unlike on most committees, whose chairmen are usually chosen on the basis of seniority, the Rules chairman is the appointee of the Speaker of the House.

Dreier was essentially a human appendage of Tom DeLay, which explains a lot. He was also a staunch opponent of tax increases for any reason, which could well explain the 112th Congress's militant position on the issue, and how they managed to oppose it so effectively.

But now, he is gone. The next ranking member is Pete "sponsored by CIA asset and drug money launder Allen Stanford" Sessions*, but of course, that doesn't matter. It's all down to who John Boehner decides to pick. And that choice will tell you pretty much everything about how the next two years are going to work in the House.

*Also known for his comments about how the Republicans can learn from the example of the Taliban, his connections to Abramoff, receiver of funds from the fraudtastic Wyly brothers, receiver of bribes from Countrywide Financial and the principal member of government involved in "Blimpgate". He's not exceptionally corrupt, but only because he hasn't yet managed to become a Senator.

If he's smart, he will pick a nobody with a weak power base or other, perhaps character defects (Dreier was homosexual, allegedly, and it was a widely known secret on the Hill that he doted on his Chief of Staff), so the person in question is entirely reliant on Boehner for their power and will carry out his agenda.

But party politics is never entirely clear. Who can lean on Boehner? Does he require the support of someone? Does he owe someone, or need to keep them quiet?

And this, incidentally, is why I figure modern politics isn't much all that different from feudalism. All we're doing here is speculating on palace and court intrigues, which can rule the day far more so than party alleigance, ideology and voting mechanisms.

*Also known for his comments about how the Republicans can learn from the example of the Taliban, his connections to Abramoff, receiver of funds from the fraudtastic Wyly brothers, receiver of bribes from Countrywide Financial and the principal member of government involved in "Blimpgate". He's not exceptionally corrupt, but only because he hasn't yet managed to become a Senator.

And this, incidentally, is why I figure modern politics isn't much all that different from feudalism. All we're doing here is speculating on palace and court intrigues, which can rule the day far more so than party alleigance, ideology and voting mechanisms.

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.

Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial increases in corpse production.

*Also known for his comments about how the Republicans can learn from the example of the Taliban, his connections to Abramoff, receiver of funds from the fraudtastic Wyly brothers, receiver of bribes from Countrywide Financial and the principal member of government involved in "Blimpgate". He's not exceptionally corrupt, but only because he hasn't yet managed to become a Senator.

wat

Quote

In early February 2009 he made the following comment about the Republican Party legislative strategy in the House of Representatives: "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during the 60-minute sitdown. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes." He continued: "I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban.... I'm saying an example of how you go about [it] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Of course, the Taliban "disrupted and changed an entire person's processes" by killing them. Or stoning them to death. Or collapsing a wall on them. Or ampuating limbs. Or whipping them until they collapsed.

*Also known for his comments about how the Republicans can learn from the example of the Taliban, his connections to Abramoff, receiver of funds from the fraudtastic Wyly brothers, receiver of bribes from Countrywide Financial and the principal member of government involved in "Blimpgate". He's not exceptionally corrupt, but only because he hasn't yet managed to become a Senator.

wat

Quote

In early February 2009 he made the following comment about the Republican Party legislative strategy in the House of Representatives: "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during the 60-minute sitdown. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes." He continued: "I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban.... I'm saying an example of how you go about [it] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Of course, the Taliban "disrupted and changed an entire person's processes" by killing them. Or stoning them to death. Or collapsing a wall on them. Or ampuating limbs. Or whipping them until they collapsed.

So, yeah. That's a thing.

I wouldn't even put it past a few Republicans to be saying stuff like "These Democrats in congress aren't on our side LET'S STONE THEM IT'S WHAT JESUS WOULD DO."

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.

Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial increases in corpse production.

*Also known for his comments about how the Republicans can learn from the example of the Taliban, his connections to Abramoff, receiver of funds from the fraudtastic Wyly brothers, receiver of bribes from Countrywide Financial and the principal member of government involved in "Blimpgate". He's not exceptionally corrupt, but only because he hasn't yet managed to become a Senator.

wat

Quote

In early February 2009 he made the following comment about the Republican Party legislative strategy in the House of Representatives: "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during the 60-minute sitdown. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes." He continued: "I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban.... I'm saying an example of how you go about [it] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Of course, the Taliban "disrupted and changed an entire person's processes" by killing them. Or stoning them to death. Or collapsing a wall on them. Or ampuating limbs. Or whipping them until they collapsed.

So, yeah. That's a thing.

I wouldn't even put it past a few Republicans to be saying stuff like "These Democrats in congress aren't on our side LET'S STONE THEM IT'S WHAT JESUS WOULD DO."